공유물분할
1. The remainder of the proceeds from the sale by selling the 47,768 square meters of the forest land D, Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and deducting the costs of the auction from the proceeds of the sale.
1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are co-owners of land D, 47,768m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), 1/4 shares in the instant land, Defendant B, and Defendant C possess 1/2 shares in the instant land, and 1/4 shares in the instant land. The fact that consultation on the method of partition of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not lead to agreement on the method of partition of the instant land is significant in this court.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant land, has the right to claim the partition of the instant land against the Defendants, other co-owners.
2. Method of partition of co-owned property;
A. In principle, partition of co-owned property according to the relevant legal principles shall be made in kind so as to allow a reasonable partition according to the share of each co-owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da4580, Apr. 12, 2002). However, when it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, if the value of the co-owned property might be significantly reduced if it is impossible to divide in kind or in kind, it may be made by ordering auction of the co-owned
(Article 269(2) of the Civil Act provides that the requirement of “undivided in kind” includes cases where it is physically impossible to divide property, as well as cases where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide property in kind in light of the nature, location, area, use status, value of use after the division, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da56297, Dec. 10, 2015). B.
In the case of this case, ① the fact inquiry of this court concerning the fact finding of the survey conducted for the division of the land in this case, the president of the Korea Land Information Corporation replys to the purport that “the land in this case is not a forest area,” and ② even if it is possible to conduct a survey after lumbering, the cost of punishment is excessive compared to the market price, considering the current status of the land in this case.